2025:JHHC:20404 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3693 of 2025 ---- Vikash Munda, S/o late Gallu Munda, resident of village Ormanjhi, P.O. and P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ---- 05/ 25.07.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 305 of 2023, G.R.NO.42/2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406/ 420/ 419/ 471/ 467/ 468/ 120(B)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Lohardaga. 2. As per the first information report, on 10.10.2023 at around 5:30 AM, the informant loaded 30 tons 530 Kilogram paddy worth Rs.6,86,925/- on a truck having registration No. JH 02 AV 9314 to be delivered to Shanti Rice Mill in Burdhman, West Bengal but the truck did not reach the destination. When the informant tried to call on the driver’s and the truck owner's phone numbers, both were found switched off. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and has been made accused in the case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. He contended that no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no concern with the accused persons. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the co-accused in their confessional statements have stated about petitioner’s involvement. He also contended that extensive investigation is required in this case to unearth the involvement and role of each accused and it has also come in the case diary that the petitioner is evading investigation. 5. I have gone through the available records including the case diary. I find that witness examined in course of investigation at paragraph 40 2025:JHHC:20404 -: 2 :- of the case diary has stated that one Mukesh Munda had expressed to sell 30 tons paddy in lieu of cash payment. At paragraphs 51, 57 and 62 the arrested c0accused Mukesh Munda, Gudu Ganjhu and Shivratan Munda have stated in their confessional statement that the petitioner was paid Rs.5,000/- for contacting the businessman dealing in paddy. Paragraph 68 of the case diary is the confessional statement of another arrested accused Manoj Kumar Sahu. He stated that the petitioner had contacted him for selling the stolen paddy. In view of materials on record, extensive investigation is required in this case and even investigation in presence of the petitioner. 6. Considering all these facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03